The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision dismissing a revision filed after nearly seven years. It affirmed that unexplained and excessive delay defeats relief under Section 264.
The High Court upheld rejection of a belated revision filed nearly seven years after rectification denial. It ruled that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the inordinate delay.
The court held that a reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional officer violated the faceless assessment scheme. As a result, the notice and the consequential assessment order were set aside, subject to liberty if higher courts take a different view.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
The case examined whether a General Power of Attorney could be treated as a Joint Development Agreement for taxing capital gains. The Tribunal held that a GPA does not amount to a transfer, leading to deletion of the addition.
The tribunal held that a bank guarantee equal to a large portion of goods value was excessive and reduced it to 30% of the duty amount, while sustaining the bond for full value.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits could not be fully treated as undisclosed when income was declared under section 44AD. The key takeaway is acceptance of presumptive business income.
The issue arose where cancellation relied on grounds not stated in the show cause notice. The court ordered merits adjudication after restoring the appeal with costs.
The Tribunal held that demonetization-period cash deposits were supported by agricultural income evidence. The section 68 addition was deleted after accepting bills, vouchers, and landholding details.
The petitioner sought to invalidate the entry tax law again on constitutional grounds. The ruling clarifies that final judgments bar subsequent identical challenges.
